Applies a named video or audio effect to a specific clip on an Adobe Premiere Pro timeline using track type, track index, and clip index.
Apply a video or audio effect to a clip on the timeline
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| effectName | Yes | Name of the effect (e.g. 'Gaussian Blur', 'Lumetri Color', 'Warp Stabilizer') | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether it can be undone, whether effectName must match an existing effect (discoverable via get_video_effects_list / get_audio_effects_list), or what happens on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the reason behavioral gaps remain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a four-parameter required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits prerequisites, effect name sourcing, and the relationship to sibling effect-management tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter meaning is fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the video/audio effect domain and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's enum and effect examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource — applying a video or audio effect to a timeline clip — which is clear on its own. It stops short of distinguishing itself from nearby siblings like set_effect_property, remove_effect, or get_clip_effects, so an agent must infer the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus set_effect_property (which modifies an existing effect) or how to discover valid effect names. It implicitly assumes the clip already exists and the effect is valid, but never says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.